The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1887-01-13

thought best not to have the road levy
this year, in view of the unusual crisis
with our farmers from short crops. 1t is,
however, expected to give it trial next
year. If, after a fair test, this Road Law
does not greatly improve our roads, and
satisfy the travelling public that it is a
good law, it will be repealed. We need
better roads; therefore, let us give the
law chance, and see if it will not help
us to get what We want in this direction.
The letter of Capt. B.sR. Tillman,
which we publish in another. column,
contains several thrusts which are more
or less deserved, but as one who was
present and saw the contest, and who
earnestly desiredsand advocated the re-
organization of the Agricultural depart
ment, we must dissent from the opinion
that the lawyers in the Senate are re-
sponsible for the failure of the bill to
pass that body. 1t is true that majority
Of the lawyers voted to continue the bill,
but it is also true. that the only lawyers
who spoke on the measure urged its pas
sage, and a majority of the farmers who
spoke urged its continuance until next
session. Senator Youmans, the Chair
man of the Committee on Agriculture,
and farmer who prides himself on his
repeated attacks on the lawyers, led in
the fight to continue the bill, and did 30.
as he claimed, as a representative of the
Agricultural interests of the State. He
was strongly backed up by Senator
iWoford, of Spartanburg, who broadly
asserted that the bill was not fair to the
farmers of the State, because it did not
give the recognition to the State Grange
that should be given that body. Now, it
is true that q majority Of the lawyers
voted to continue the bill, but they did
so, beyond doubt, because the farmers
were divided, and the Chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture and other
prominent farmers urged its continuance.
We have not the slightest doubt that the
bill would have passed without word of
opposition, if these gentlemen, protesting
to represent the farmers of the State,
had not urged its continuance. They
thought it would pass if it reached a
vote, for they would not risk vote on
the bill, but simply urged the Senate to
continue it to next session, so that the
Senators could see for themselves " neither
the farmers wanted the bill lpassed or not
and if they did, it could be passed next
winter. tits, therefore, we think, a mis-.
take to charge the failure to pass the
bill up to the lawyers. If the farmers
send men to represent them who oppose
measures pertaining to agriculture. it
seems to us that the farmers first atten
tion should be given to the Representa-
tives from their own class. We have no
doubt that the bill, if properly managed,
can be passed next session, but it will
have to be done by taking such course
as will convince the Senate that the
farmers of the State want the change.
This can be done by keeping up the
Farmers Convention and continuing the
advocacy of recognizing the department.
A conspicuous illustration of the point
We are making may be given in the res
olntion which Col. Brawley, an able law
yer from Charleston, bad passed in the
House appointing r-mmission, to con-
sist of Chancellor Johnson, Ex Gov.
Hagood and Capt. B. R. Tillman, to
visit the Agricultural Colleges of
Mississippi and Michigan, andreportupon
their cost aud efficiency to the next
session of the Legislature, with their ex-
penses to be paid out of the funds of the
Department of Agriculture. In the Sen
ate Messrs. Youmans and Wofford again
opposed the resolution. Not lawyer
spoke against it, but Messrs. Buist and
Murray strongly advocated its passage.
Col. Buist made very strong speech in
favor of its passage, and Mr.. Murray
urged its passage as means Of getting
light on the question. He said that it
was generally understood that Chancellor
johnson opposed an Agricultural College;
Capt. Tillman favored it, and Gov.
Hagood had not expressed any decided
opinion. Such committee would fairly,
ably and intelligeutly investigate, and its
report would settle the Agricultural Col
lege question, one way or the other. If
it showed these Colleges to be failures or
too expensive for our means, the question
would be settled against the establish.
ment, and on the other hand, if the re-
port showed that the College would do
good work, and that the State could afford
to establish it, the College would be an
assured fact. He favored the College
and wanted the investigation. The
friends of establishing an Agricultural
College were not afraid Of light, and if
the opponents of the College were afraid
to have the subject investigated, he
thought it an evidence that they had no
confidence in The correctness of their
position, and were afraid of light on the
subject. He vigorously controverted
Senator Youman's claim to represent the
farmers, and maintained that there should
be no class representation in the Senate
of South Carolina. He claimed that
each Senator represented the whole peo-
pie and all the interests of his county,